24 PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL MUSEUM vol. 71 



to Scia Diego County; farther south, from Nebraska (Halsey), Colo- 

 rado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico (Cloudcroft, Las Vegas) ; one spec- 

 imen from Texas (Austin), one from Meadow Valley, Mexico, and one 

 marked "Alaska? J. A. Kusche 1916." I feel certain that it is pres- 

 ent in Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other States 

 in this belt, but it is a northern species and its extensions southward 

 are in the mountainous districts. I suspect the specimen labelled 

 from Texas is incorrectly marked. Dates of capture vary greatly 

 for different localities but two generations a season would appear 

 probable. The blueberry, Solidago canadensis, Spiraea salicifolia, and 

 Taraxicam taraxicum are plants on which this species has been cap- 

 tured. 



Types. — Smith evidently had at least three specimens at hand 

 when he described this species, for he gives, "Hab. Nova Scotia; 

 California; Rocky Mountains." I found in the British Museum col- 

 lection, five specimens which Smith apparently had. One of these, 

 from "Rocky Mounts" was labelled Type in Smith's writing, as well 

 as bearing the printed Museum "Type" label. Another specimen 

 from "Rocky Mounts;" one from California and two from "N. 

 Scotia. Redman" complete the lot. 



Saussure's mexicana may include examples of luctuosa and his 

 northern specimens, at least, of what he calls luctuosa are probably 

 that species. This material is presumably at Geneva. 



Cameron's piceiventris is a problem. In the British Museum is a 

 single female labelled piceiventris in Cameron's writing but not 

 marked Type. Its locality label agrees with that for the specimen 

 described, and I believe it to be the type, even though not so labeled, 

 as the description implies only one specimen. The insect itself I 

 should not describe as piceous but dull brownish-red mingled with 

 black, these two colors irregularly placed and not alike on the two 

 sides of the body. I have seen nothing quite like it in material 

 studied and am in doubt whether to regard it as a freak (melanistic?) 

 or a good species. The "other examples from Totonicapam, 8,500 

 to 10,500 feet," I am unable to separate in any way structurally, from 

 luctuosa, but they are more slender. Possibly they represent the 

 condition this species assumes in the southern part of its range. I 

 very much doubt if Cameron was correct in placing them under picei- 

 ventris in any case. 



The males referred to this species by later writers are undoubtedly 

 those of argentifrons. 



The female of luctuosa is ordinarily an easily recognized insect, it 

 being the only one which is black. It is most closely resembled by 

 argentifrons, but this is deep blue, more slender, and the abdomen 

 rises less sharply from the petiole than in luctuosa. 



